Improving Classroom Learning
Environments
by Cultivating
and Resilience
Education
(CARE)
Journal
of Classroom
Interaction,Awareness
ISSN 0749-4025.
© 2011,inVol
46.1, pages
37-48
Improving Classroom Learning Environments by Cultivating
Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE):
Results of Two Pilot Studies
Patricia A. Jennings
Karin E. Snowberg
Michael A. Coccia
Mark T. Greenberg
Pennsylvania State University
Abstract
Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education
(CARE) is a professional development program designed to
reduce stress and improve teachers’ performance. Two pilot
studies examined program feasibility and attractiveness and
preliminary evidence of efficacy. Study 1 involved educators from a high-poverty urban setting (n = 31). Study 2 involved student teachers and 10 of their mentors working in a
suburban/semi-rural setting (n = 43) (treatment and control
groups). While urban educators showed significant pre-post
improvements in mindfulness and time urgency, the other
sample did not, suggesting that CARE may be more efficacious in supporting teachers working in high-risk settings.
Introduction
Teacher quality has become a top priority of our national policy agenda to improve student academic achievement (Wilson et al., 2008). Additionally, there is strong
public support for a broad educational agenda that includes
enhancing academic achievement and students’ social-emotional competence, character and civic engagement (Public
Agenda, 1994, 1997, 2002; Metlife, 2002; Rose & Gallup,
2000). Although there is some evidence that teachers’ socialemotional skills and well-being are characteristics of quality
teachers capable of fulfilling this broad agenda (Jennings &
Greenberg, 2009), little research has explored this question.
The purpose of the present study was to examine whether a
professional development intervention can improve socialemotional skills and well-being and consequently improve
teachers’ ability to develop and maintain a well-managed
learning environment and provide optimal emotional and instructional support to their students.
Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 46.1 2011
One model that advances understanding of links between teachers’ social and emotional competence (SEC)
and well-being and classroom and student outcomes is Jennings and Greenberg’s (2009) Prosocial Classroom theoretical model (see Figure 1). In this model, the link between
SEC and student outcomes is mediated by teacher-student
relationships, classroom management, and social and emotional learning (SEL) program implementation. To successfully address the management, instructional, and emotional
challenges of the classroom, teachers must employ a high
degree of social and emotional competence. When teachers
lack this personal resource, classroom management can suffer, resulting in lower levels of on-task student behavior and
performance (Marzano, Marzano & Pickering, 2003). As the
classroom climate deteriorates, the demands on the teacher
increase, triggering in the teacher what has been referred
to as a “burnout cascade” (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009, p.
492). Under these conditions, teachers’ responses to student
behavior may become hostile and punitive, reactions that
may derail student motivation and contribute to a self-sustaining cycle of classroom disruption. Over time, high levels
of distress may lead to burnout (Tsouloupas, Carson, Matthews, Grawitch, & Barber, 2010) and a downward spiral
of deteriorating teacher performance and student behavior
and achievement (Osher et al., 2007). In contrast, teachers
who regularly experience more positive emotions in their
work lives may be more resilient (Cohn, Brown, Fredrickson, Milkels, & Conway, 2009; Gu & Day, 2007) in response
to these stressors and more able to create and maintain supportive learning environments. This evidence supports the
need for specialized professional development that promotes
teachers’ SEC and well-being in the service of maximizing
their capacity to create and maintain optimal classroom organization and to provide instructional and emotional support to their students.
37
Figure
1. The
Prosocial
Classroom
Model Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE)
Improving
Classroom
Learning
Environments
by Cultivating
Figure 1
Figure 1. A Model of Teacher Well Being and Social and Emotional Competence,
Figure 1. A Model of Teacher
Well
and and
Social
and Outcomes
Emotional Competence, Support and
Support
andBeing
Classroom
Student
Classroom and Student Outcomes
From: Jennings, P. A. & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in
Jennings,
P.A. &
Greenberg,
M.T.
(2009). The
prosocial
classroom:
Teacher
and from
relation From:
to student
and classroom
outcomes.
Review
of Educational
Research,
79, 491-525.
Reprinted
withsocial
permission
emotional competence
in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational
SAGE Publications,
Inc.
Research, 79, 491-525. Reprinted with permission from SAGE Publications, Inc.
The CARE Program Model
The Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE) professional development program was produced by a team of educators and researchers at the Garrison
Institute. CARE was designed to reduce teachers’ distress
and promote improvements in teachers’ well-being, motivational orientation/efficacy, and mindfulness. Qualitative data
suggests that the program results in such improvements that
may also contribute to teachers’ abilities to provide organizational, instructional, and emotional support to their students (Jennings, 2011). The CARE program includes three
primary content areas described below that are presented in
a series of four day-long sessions presented over four to five
weeks.
Emotion skills instruction
Because emotional exhaustion is a major contributor to
teacher burnout and often interferes with teachers’ functioning, CARE introduces emotional skills instruction drawn
38
from the neuroscience of emotion. This involves a combination of didactic instruction and experiential activities
(e.g., reflective practices and role-plays) to support teachers’
recognition of emotional states and the exploration of their
“emotional landscape”—habitual emotional patterns. They
also practice self-induction of positive emotions (Cohn et al.,
2009) to promote resilience and help reappraise emotionally
provocative situations. CARE aims to support teachers to be
more sensitive to students’ needs, more aware of classroom
emotional climate and better able to regulate their emotions
while managing provocative behavior.
Mindfulness/stress reduction practices
Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are effective
in reducing both stress and illness (Gross, 2009) as well as
improving psychological functioning (Weinstein, Brown,
& Ryan, 2009). Mindful awareness practices focus on a
“nonelaborative, nonjudgmental, present-centered awareness in which each thought, feeling, or sensation that arises
in the attentional field is acknowledged and accepted as it
Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 46.1 2011
Improving Classroom Learning Environments by Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE)
is” (Bishop et al., 2004, p.232). Mindfulness involves two
primary components: self-regulation of attention and nonjudgmental awareness. Self-regulation of attention allows
for metacognitive awareness of one’s emotional and cognitive experience as it occurs. This meta-awareness combined
with a non-judgmental awareness characterized by curiosity,
openness, and acceptance supports emotional and cognitive
self-awareness and self-regulation. Indeed, mindfulness enhances regulatory processes that buffer against psychological
distress (Jimenez, Niles, & Park, 2010). As MBIs promote
flexibility (Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010) and self-reflection,
they may be well suited for helping teachers overcome the
tendency to make automatic, reactive appraisals of student
behavior that contribute to emotional exhaustion (Chang,
2009). Thus, developing greater mindful awareness may
support both effective classroom management and caring.
CARE introduces a series of mindfulness activities,
beginning with short periods of silent reflection and extending to activities that bring mindfulness into aspects of daily
living such as standing, walking, being present in front of
a group, listening to others, etc. Through these activities,
teachers learn to bring greater awareness to their classroom
organization and their relationships with students, parents
and colleagues.
Caring and listening practices
To promote empathy and compassion, CARE introduces “caring practice” and “mindful listening.” Caring practice
involves silent reflection focused on generating feelings of
care for oneself and others by mentally offering well-being,
happiness, and peace—first to oneself, then to a loved one,
then to a neutral colleague or acquaintance, and finally to
a person who one finds challenging, such as a difficult student, parent, or colleague. Practiced over time, this activity
produces increases in daily experiences of positive emotions
and decreased illness and depressive symptoms (Fredrickson, Coffey, Pek, Cohn, & Finkel, 2008). Mindful listening
exercises develop the skill to simply listen to another and notice (without acting upon) emotional reactions such as urges
to interrupt, offer advice, or judge. These exercises help
teachers more effectively listen to students and to be more
sensitive to their needs, especially during conflict in which a
calm, supportive presence can support conflict resolution.
The Present Study
This paper presents data collected during the first year
of a two-year intervention development project presenting
CARE as an in-service professional development program
for working teachers. The program was piloted with two
samples of very different participants: teachers working in
a high-poverty urban setting (Study 1) and student teachers
Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 46.1 2011
and some of their mentors working in a semi-rural/suburban
college town setting (Study 2). We hypothesized that educators who received the CARE program would show increases
in measures of well-being, motivational orientation/efficacy,
and mindfulness. Among those enrolled in Study 2, we hypothesized that classrooms would show improvements in
classroom organization, instructional support, and emotional
support compared to control teachers’ classrooms.
Methods
Study 1
Participants
CARE was presented to two cohorts of educators
working in an urban region of the northeast who were recruited from four low performing elementary schools in high
poverty neighborhoods (85% economically disadvantaged,
95% minority). Cohort A (n = 15) consisted of seven regular
classroom teachers, six specialists (learning support, special education, preschool supervisor, vocational high school
teacher), one counselor, and one psychologist who received
CARE in the fall of 2009. Cohort B (n = 16) consisted of
seven regular classroom teachers and nine specialists who
received CARE in the spring of 2010. Cohort B participants
included two men, while Cohort A was composed of all
women. The primarily European American sample included
two African Americans and one Asian American. Participants had a mean age of 40 years (SD = 11.8). A majority
(n = 30) had bachelor’s degrees, 14 had graduate degrees,
and their years of experience ranged from 1 to 37 years (M =
13.23, SD = 10.23).
Procedures
After teachers were recruited and consent was obtained,
they completed a battery of questionnaires prior to and after
the CARE program to assess changes in well-being, motivational orientation/efficacy, and mindfulness. At post-test,
participants completed an additional questionnaire and participated in a focus group to assess the teachers’ perceptions
of program satisfaction, feasibility, and effectiveness. CARE
was presented to both cohorts by two of the program’s developers. Cohort A (n = 15) received CARE in the fall of
2009 presented in the form of two weekends separated by
one month during which participants received phone coaching from program facilitators to help them practice the skills
they learned the first weekend and to apply these skills to
classroom challenges. The structure for the Cohort B program format was modified in response to feedback from the
Cohort A focus groups. Cohort A participants reported that
they felt the two weekends were spaced too far apart and
39
Improving Classroom Learning Environments by Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE)
they wanted more frequent contact with facilitators. Therefore, Cohort B’s schedule was modified as follows: twoday weekend workshop, two-week intersession with phone
coaching, one-day workshop, two-week intersession with
phone coaching, one-day workshop. One participant from
each cohort dropped out of the program after the first weekend. During each program, each remaining participant was
assigned to one facilitator who provided the phone coaching
for 20 to 30 minutes over the phone approximately two times
over the course of the program.
Within a few weeks after each CARE program ended,
the participants attended focus groups (six to eight per group)
led by neutral university research staff blind to the study
aims. They were asked questions about their impressions of
the program, if and how their levels of emotional and physical awareness had changed as a result of their attendance,
and how this change of awareness may translate to different
behavior, changes in relationships with students and adults,
changes in ways they manage their classrooms, and changes
in their work-related stress levels.1 Focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed.
Measures
A battery of self-report measures was used to assess
program impact on teachers’ well-being, motivational orientation/efficacy, and mindfulness. Cronbach’s alphas indicated acceptable internal reliability for most measures (.70
or above).
Measures of well-being. Six dimensions of well-being
were measured using four different instruments.
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). The
PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) assesses two
dimensions of affect. Multiple time frame stems have been
used with the PANAS. Our participants were asked to rate
how they “felt during the past few weeks” on 20 emotions
(such as “hostile” and “enthusiastic”) using a five-point
Likert-type scale (1 = “very little or not at all,” 5 = “extremely”). The mean ratings for the 10 items belonging to
the positive and negative subscales were computed. Each
subscale score ranged from 1 to 5 and higher scores reflect
more positive/negative affect.
The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale
(CES-D). The CES-D (Radloff, 1977) is a well-validated,
reliable measure of depressive symptoms. Participants are
asked to consider their depressive symptoms over the past
week and then rank the frequency of these feelings using
a Likert-type scale where 0 = “rarely (less than one day)”
to 3 = “most of the time (five to seven days).” The 20-item
scale includes items such as “I felt that everything I did was
an effort,” and “I felt lonely.” After reverse scoring the ap1
List of questions available upon request to first author.
40
propriate items, scores are summed and higher scores reflect
greater depressive symptoms.
The Time Urgency Scale (TUS). The TUS (Landy, Rastegary, Thayer, & Colvin, 1991) is a well-validated measure
developed to assess a multidimensional construct of time
pressure. The scale is composed of 33 items: 24 are part of
five subscales to measure speech patterns (five items such
as “I talk more rapidly than most people”), eating behavior
(five items such as “I eat rapidly, even when there is plenty of time”), competitiveness (six items such as “I go ‘all
out’”), task-related hurry (three items such as “I often feel
very pressed for time”), and general hurry (five items such
as “I usually work fast”). The remaining nine items can be
included in the mean to create a total scale score. Participants
are asked to respond to 33 statements that describe their behavior with respect to time usage using a Likert-like scale
where 1 = “strongly disagree” and 5 = “strongly agree.”
The Daily Physical Symptoms (DPS). The DPS (Larsen & Kasimatis, 1997) questionnaire is a physical symptom
checklist containing 27 items. Participants were asked about
whether or not they experienced each particular symptom
“today” and if so, to rate the severity on a 1 to 10 scale, 1 being very mild to 10 being very severe. Symptoms included
pain such as headache and backache, gastrointestinal problems such as nausea and diarrhea, cold and flu symptoms
such as cough and sore throat, and other symptoms such as
eye-related and ear-related symptoms. One score was constructed by calculating the sum of the items.
Measures of motivational orientation and teaching
efficacy. Four facets of motivation and efficacy were assessed with two different measures.
Problems in Schools Questionnaire (PIS). The PIS
(Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, & Ryan, 1981) is based on Ryan
and Deci’s (2000) self-determination theory, and assesses
whether teachers are oriented toward controlling their students’ behavior versus supporting their autonomy as it relates
to promoting intrinsic motivation. The measure is composed
of eight vignettes, followed by four items representing four
possible behavioral approaches to the problem that is posed
in the vignette: highly autonomy supportive (HA), moderately autonomy supportive (MA), moderately controlling
(MC), and highly controlling (HC). A composite weighted
score represents general autonomous supportive versus controlling orientation (Reeve, Bolt, & Cai, 1999). Respondents
are asked to rate the degree of appropriateness of each of
the four options on a seven-point Likert-like scale where 1 =
“very inappropriate” and 7 = “very appropriate” for each
of the eight situations resulting in a total of 32 ratings.
Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Questionnaire (TSES). The
TSES (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) is a 24item measure of three components of teaching efficacy: efJournal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 46.1 2011
Improving Classroom Learning Environments by Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE)
TABLE 1
Table 1
Study 1 Comparisons
Pre-Post Comparisons
from
UrbanACohorts
A and Be Self-Report
Study 1 Pre-Post
from Urban
Cohorts
and B Self-Report
Measures Measures

M-pre
SD-pre
M-post SD-post
d
p
Well-being
PANAS Positive Affect
.91
3.40
.78
3.56
.58
.21
.38
PANAS Negative Affect
.85
1.95
.62
1.81
.66
.23
.24
CES Depressive Symptoms
.89
10.89
7.36
9.12
8.21
.24
.27
TUS Task-Related Hurry
.87
3.71
1.00
3.47
.91
.24
.01
TUS General Hurry
.53
3.50
.56
3.35
.63
.27
.08
--
25.26
30.18
28.28
31.26
.10
.66
--
1.74
2.61
1.77
3.83
.01
.85
TSES Student Engagement
.86
6.66
1.12
6.85
1.16
.17
.67
TSES Instructional Practices
.91
7.15
1.18
7.60
.84
.38
.11
TSES Classroom Management
.90
7.06
1.22
7.44
.98
.31
.33
FFMQObserving
.79
2.95
.67
3.58
.54
.94
.00
FFMQDescribing
.89
3.46
.77
3.71
.69
.32
.00
FFMQAwareness
.91
3.31
.78
3.47
.70
.21
.10
FFMQNon-Judging
.96
3.55
.98
3.93
.71
.39
.06
FFMQNon-Reactivity
.83
2.83
.68
3.36
.50
.78
.00
Interpersonal Mindfulness
.83
3.51
.46
3.73
.30
.48
.02
Daily Physical Symptoms
Motivation/Efficacy
PIS Motivating Score
Mindfulness
ficacy for instructional strategies (“how much can you use
a variety of assessment strategies?”), efficacy for classroom
management (“How well can you keep a few problem students form ruining an entire lesson?”) and efficacy for student engagement (“How much can you do to foster student
creativity?”). For each item, the respondent was asked to
rate the extent to which he or she can demonstrate a particular capability utilizing a nine-point Likert-type scale where
Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 46.1 2011
1 = “nothing” and 9 = “a great deal.” Three scale scores
were produced from the items, and a composite score of all
the items was also obtained.
Measures of mindfulness. Six dimensions of mindfulness were assessed: five within one instrument and the sixth
in a second instrument.
The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ).
The FFMQ (Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, & Toney,
41
Improving Classroom Learning Environments by Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE)
2006) is a 39-item instrument based on a factor analytic study
of five independently developed mindfulness measures: observing, describing, acting with awareness, and non-judging
and non-reactivity to inner experience. Subjects were asked
to indicate how true 39 statements are for them using a fivepoint Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = “never or very
rarely true” to 5 = “very often or always true.” These items
form five subscales: observing (eight items such as “I pay
attention to how my emotions affect my thoughts and behavior”), describing (eight items such as “Even when I’m feeling terribly upset, I can find a way to put it into words”), acting with awareness (eight items, all reverse scored, such as
“It seems I am ‘running on automatic’ without much awareness of what I’m doing”), non-judgmental (eight items, all
reverse scored, such as “I criticize myself for having irrational or inappropriate emotions”) and non-reactive (seven
items such as “I perceive my feelings and emotions without
having to react to them”).
The Interpersonal Mindfulness in Teaching Questionnaire (IMT). The IMT (Greenberg, Jennings & Goodman,
2010) is a 20-item measure designed to assess how teachers apply mindful awareness to their behavior and emotions
while teaching and during interactions with students (for example, “When I’m upset with my students, I notice how I am
feeling before I take action”). Respondents are asked to rate
each item utilizing a five-point Likert-like scale where 1 =
“never true,” and 5 = “always true.” The mean of the item
scores was used as a total scale score.
Analyses and Results
Pre-post questionnaire data was compared using a nonparametric alternative to the repeated measures t-test appropriate for small samples (Wilcoxon signed-rank test). A more
liberal significance level of p < .10 was used to define prepost differences given the low power to detect significance.
We also report the effect sizes as Cohen’s d (see Table 1). We
performed analyses of change for each cohort and found that
they each supported the total sample results.
Well-being, motivation/efficacy and mindfulness.
For measures of well-being, two factors on the Time Urgency Scale showed significant change: task-related hurry (d =
.24) and general hurry (d = .27). No significant effects were
found on positive and negative affect (PANAS), depressive
symptoms (CES-D), or the Daily Physical Symptoms Inventory (DPS), although all scores except DPS changed in
the expected direction. For the motivational orientation and
teaching efficacy measures, no significant effects were found
for either the Problems in Schools Questionnaire (PIS) or the
Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy (TSES) (student engagement, instructional practices, or classroom management subscales),
42
however all scores changed in the expected direction. The
strongest effects were found for measures of mindfulness.
Results suggest substantial (p < .10) improvement at posttest for the five facets of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire ranging in effect size from d = .21 to .94 (see Table
1). Interpersonal Mindfulness in Teaching (IMT) improved
at post-test with an effect size of d = .48. Program Satisfaction. Overall, CARE was well received by the participants. A large majority (93%) reported
that they “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that this type of program should be integrated into preparation and in-service
training for all teachers. Teachers reported that CARE improved their self-awareness (97%, n = 28) and well-being
(93%, n = 27). They also “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that
as a result of CARE they are “better able to manage classroom behaviors effectively and compassionately” (83%, n =
24) and are “better able to establish and maintain supportive
relationships” with the children they teach (79%, n = 23). Finally, as a result of the CARE program, participants noticed
improvements in their students’ (“much better” or “better”)
prosocial behavior (74%, n = 20), on-task behavior (74%,
n = 20), and academic performance (65%, n = 17).
Focus Group Findings. Focus group conversations
revealed that participants were not only overwhelmingly
satisfied with their experience in the CARE program but
had adopted new habits such as noticing anxiety and stopping to take some deep breaths, choosing to prioritize selfcare and cultivating greater caring and empathy for others.
Participants reported that CARE was helpful in increasing
their emotional awareness and acceptance of their emotional
states, helpful in lessening their distress levels in general
and that the skills learned in the program helped them recognize and regulate emotions related to managing challenging student behaviors. Many reported improvements in the
relationships with their students, co-workers, and families as
a result of applying CARE techniques. Participants reported
new awareness of their emotional triggers both in school
and in their personal lives, and many reported being more
mindful of slowing down and being newly able to respond
appropriately to challenging situations rather than automatically reacting out of strong emotions. Several reported feeling calmer at work and choosing to verbalize their emotional
states with their students, leading to greater understanding
between teachers and students and faster resolution of disruptive or conflict situations.
Study 2
Participants
Student teachers were recruited to participate along
with their mentor teachers. Eleven student teacher/mentor
pairs plus 21 individual student teachers were enrolled. One
Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 46.1 2011
Improving Classroom Learning Environments by Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE)
mentor and three students dropped out of the study leaving
39 individuals with complete data and 29 classrooms total.
Schools were located in primarily upper- and/or middle-class
suburban or semi-rural neighborhoods (16% economically
disadvantaged, 12% minority). The sample was primarily
European American and nearly entirely female; one student
teacher was male. Student teachers had a mean age of 21
years (SD = .5); mentor teachers had a mean age of 43 years
(SD = 12). Mentor teachers were highly educated: five had
completed a graduate degree, five had some graduate training and one had a bachelor’s degree only. Years of experience ranged from four to 38 years (M = 16.7, SD = 11.8).
Procedures
After obtaining consent, all participants completed
the same online questionnaire used in Study 1, and their
classrooms were observed and coded. Immediately after the
baseline assessments, the 32 classrooms were randomly assigned for the associated student teacher or student teacher/
mentor pair to receive CARE in the winter of 2009 or in the
late spring of 2010 (waitlist control). Stratification was employed to ensure a balance of student teacher/mentor pairs
and suburban and semi-rural classrooms in both groups. At
the pre-test period, two groups were created from 43 subjects: a treatment group consisting of 16 students and five
mentors and a control group consisting of 16 students and
six mentors. At the post-test period, after four subjects (three
students and one mentor) dropped, 39 remaining subjects
comprised a treatment group consisting of 13 students and
four mentors and a control group consisting of 16 students
and six mentors. The CARE program was presented to the
treatment group by the same two program developers as in
Study 1 (utilizing the original two-weekend format as it had
not yet been revised) during January and February 2010.
Due to a heavy snowstorm, the third day of the program was
cancelled; the missed material was condensed and covered
on the final day. At post-test, participants completed the
same battery of online measures and an additional questionnaire on program satisfaction. Separate focus groups were
then held for students and for mentor teachers. These focus
groups were led by the same team of individuals and followed the same protocol as in Study 1. At post-intervention,
treatment group and control group classrooms were observed
again one time during the morning work period and coded
by researchers who were blind to the study participants’ assignments.
Measures
Self-report. Teacher well-being, motivation/efficacy,
and mindfulness were assessed by the same questionnaires
and protocol utilized in Study 1. At the end of the program,
Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 46.1 2011
participants also completed the same program satisfaction
questionnaire.
Observations. Each classroom was observed and
rated pre- and post-intervention using the CLASS (Pianta,
La Paro, & Hamre, 2003), a well-validated measure of
classroom climate. The CLASS rating system consists of
10 items that form three factors: (a) Organization; (b) Instructional Support; and (c) Emotional Support. Each item
is rated on a scale from 1 to 7 (low to high quality). Before
the classroom observations began, research staff attended a
three-day training workshop in the CLASS led by a certified
CLASS instructor and were subsequently tested and certified reliable. Classrooms were each observed once during
each assessment period, and 20% of the observations were
double-coded to ensure inter-rater reliability. 80% reliability
was maintained throughout each observation period.
Analyses and Results
Well-being, motivation/efficacy, mindfulness. Comparisons between the CARE treatment group and control
group were made at the post-test period using covariance
adjusted estimates. Each self-report measure was adjusted
for its baseline measurement at the pre-test period. Leastsquare mean comparisons were then made to test for a treatment effect. As a descriptive comparison to Study 1, repeated-measures t-test analyses were performed on the CARE
treatment group only to test for changes between pre-post
assessment periods. CARE teachers showed a mild non-significant reduction in negative affect (p = .17) compared with
the control group. The results of the ANCOVA model suggested significant treatment effect on Problems in Schools
(PIS) motivating total score (p < .05) where CARE teachers
showed more autonomy supportive orientation at post-test
compared to the controls (see Table 2). The results of the
non-experimental analysis involving simple pre-post differences confirmed the increase in teachers’ PIS motivating
score and also the increases in the instructional practices of
the Teacher’s Sense of Self-Efficacy scale and the observing
factor of the Five Facet Mindfulness scale.
Program satisfaction. Of the participants who completed the program satisfaction survey (n = 16), 88% (n =
14) reported that they “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that this
type of program should be integrated into preparation and
in-service training for all teachers. A majority of participants
reported that CARE improved their self-awareness (81%,
n = 13) and their ability to establish and maintain supportive
relationships with the children they work with (69%, n = 11).
81% (n = 13) of these participants reported being “satisfied”
or “highly satisfied” with the CARE program content, while
75% (n = 12) reported being “satisfied” or “highly satisfied”
with the program in general.
43
Improving Classroom Learning Environments by Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE)
Table 2
TABLE 2
Study 2 Covariance Adjusted Post-Treatment Mean Comparisons from Suburban-Semi-rural
Study 2 Covariance Adjusted Post-Treatment Mean Comparisons from Suburban-Semi-Rural
Sample Self-Report Measures
Sample Self-Report Measures
alpha
M-ctrl
M-CARE
d
p
PANAS Positive Affect
.86
3.65
3.70
.11
.72
PANAS Negative Affect
.89
1.96
7.78
.43
.17
CES Depressive Symptoms
.94
10.74
9.99
.09
.78
TUS Task-Related Hurry
.82
3.84
3.85
.02
.95
TUS General Hurry
.69
3.37
3.27
.27
.38
--
14.17
14.90
.05
.87
--
1.72
2.71
.63
.05
TSES Student Engagement
.91
6.89
6.81
.07
.81
TSES Instructional Practices
.95
7.04
7.32
.26
.40
TSES Classroom Management
.92
7.24
7.08
.19
.54
FFMQObserving
.79
3.12
3.25
.19
.53
FFMQDescribing
.91
3.49
3.55
.11
.73
FFMQAwareness
.85
3.58
3.46
.21
.49
FFMQNon-Judging
.85
3.54
3.61
.09
.78
FFMQNon-Reactivity
.81
3.14
3.10
.08
.80
Well-being
Daily Physical Symptoms
Motivation/Efficacy
PIS Motivating Score
Mindfulness
Interpersonal
Mindfulness
Observation.
Comparisons
between the CARE.82
treatment group and control group CLASS factor scores were
made at the post-test period using covariance adjusted estimates. Each CLASS factor score was adjusted for its baseline measurement at the pre-test period. Least-square mean
comparisons were then made to test for a treatment effect.
Contrary to our hypothesis, the results suggested no significant treatment effects for any of the three factors.
Focus Group Findings. Analyses of the student teacher focus groups indicate that participants reported finding
44
3.69helpful in broadening
.02
.96 awareness of
the3.70
CARE program
their
their emotions, emotional triggers, and their distress level in
their classrooms and in their personal lives. They reported
recognizing habits such as rushing (walking fast and eating fast), but felt powerless to change these things due to
schedule and workload. These participants reported liking
the program but also raised concerns, noting their difficulty
concentrating during some of the longer practice segments,
difficulty with the program length, and some felt uncomfortable with some of the exercises. These participants reported
Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 46.1 2011
Improving Classroom Learning Environments by Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE)
few changes in classroom dynamics or student relationships
as a result of the program, citing that the district they work
in already employs a level of community building that left
little room for improvement, and the children they work with
rarely present challenging behaviors.
The mentor teacher focus group revealed that these
teachers felt much less of a need for stress reduction; primary motivating factors for participating in the study were
supporting their interns and receiving compensation. Mentor teachers reported being interested in learning about their
own distress and learning stress reduction skills, but after the
program was completed some stated that they already knew
much the material covered and that the program served as
a “good reminder.” Some reported increased empathy for
other teachers and interns, and none reported changes in student relationships or classroom management techniques as a
result of the program.
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to examine
whether the CARE professional development program improves teachers’ and student teachers’ social-emotional
skills (motivation/efficacy and mindfulness) and well-being and consequently improves their ability to develop and
maintain a well-managed learning environment and provide
optimal emotional and instructional support to their students. Results from Study 1 demonstrated improvements
for pre-post intervention in well-being. Two dimensions of
time urgency (task-related hurry and general hurry) showed
significant (p < .10) pre-post improvement in this sample,
suggesting that teachers felt reduced stress associated with
time demands. Changes in motivational orientation/efficacy
pre-post intervention were not significant but were in the expected direction of improvement. The most consistent significant effects were found among measures of mindfulness.
We found significant (p < .10) improvement at post-test for
the five facets of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire
ranging in effect size from d = .21 to .94, and the Interpersonal Mindfulness in Teaching (IMT) scores improved at
post-test with an effect size of d = .48. As expected, urban
teachers found the program to be enjoyable and beneficial
to their teaching. Overall, participants were highly satisfied
with the program and found it helpful in improving their
classroom management and relationships with students. A
majority reported improvements in their students’ behavior
and academic performance. The results of the focus groups
supported the program satisfaction findings and revealed that
as a result of CARE, teachers developed a greater awareness
of their stress and emotional reactivity and had developed
skills to better self-regulate during their busy working lives.
While we were unable to collect classroom observational
Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 46.1 2011
data during Study 1, we are currently doing so with a sample
in the same urban setting and it will be interesting to see if
CARE has effects on classrooms in these settings.
In contrast, the results from the suburban/semi-rural
sample were more modest. CARE teachers showed a mild,
non-significant reduction in negative affect (p = .17) as
compared with the control group. Regarding treatment effects among measures of motivational orientation/efficacy,
we found a significant treatment effect on the Problems in
Schools (PIS) motivating total score (p < .05) where CARE
teachers showed more autonomy supportive orientation at
post-test compared to the controls. We found no significant treatment effects on the measures of mindfulness. The
Study 2 sample did not report the same high level of satisfaction as found among the Study 1 teachers. Furthermore,
Study 2 participants did not report high levels of engagement with the program nor the same beneficial personal or
professional outcomes. Finally, data collected via classroom
observations did not show treatment effects.
Several factors may explain the differences in findings
across the two samples. The urban and suburban/semi-rural
school environments are extremely different. The urban district has very high levels of poverty and large numbers of
children with behavioral and academic difficulties that put
them at risk of school failure. Many of the teachers from this
district felt they had marginal institutional support. As an
added stressor, the district had recently experienced political
turmoil resulting in the firing of several top administrators,
some schools were closed, and teachers’ jobs came under
threat. In contrast, student teachers and mentors of the suburban/semi-rural school environments have lower numbers of
children at-risk and reported receiving stronger institutional
support. This district is stable and well-funded and has very
low teacher turnover. Indeed, mentor teachers were chosen
based upon their outstanding performance and these mentor
teachers reported that they felt CARE did not provide new
information but served as a reminder.
While student teachers reported having high levels of
distress associated with the pressure of academic performance (lesson plans, coursework, and performance evaluations), it is interesting that CARE did not appear to be as
relevant to their current needs as it did to the urban sample.
The context of CARE delivery where some mentors were
present with student teachers may have inhibited the uptake
of the material by the student teachers. It may be especially
important to consider social hierarchies when planning and
delivering CARE to groups in the future, as the presence of
superiors may inhibit participation. Furthermore, it is possible that the presence of the mentor teacher in the classroom
provided a buffer for the students that protected them from
the occupational distress that working teachers often report.
These contrasting results suggest that CARE may be
45
Improving Classroom Learning Environments by Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE)
best suited for individuals who have already established
their teaching/professional identity but experience challenging occupational stressors that interfere with their performance. The CARE program may also be particularly suited
to supporting teachers working with at-risk populations of
students. As CARE was designed to support teachers who
are exposed to high levels of emotional stress and who find
that emotional reactivity interferes with their teaching, it is
possible that CARE may need to be modified to be more
helpful to student teachers.
These studies were designed to be exploratory and to
provide pilot data for further refinement to the intervention
and research protocol. Nevertheless, several limitations complicated our ability to adequately test the study hypotheses.
The primary limitation of these studies was the small sample
sizes: 31 participants in Study 1 and 43 participants (21 in
the CARE group and 22 in the control group) in Study 2.
These sample sizes substantially reduced the power to detect
significant differences pre to post in Study 1 and between the
experimental and control groups in Study 2. Despite these
sample size limitations, Study 1 results were encouraging.
Furthermore we learned that the social dynamic of presenting the CARE program to individuals at various power differentials may pose challenges to program uptake. Student
teachers may have experienced added anxiety participating
in such a program alongside mentors who were in an evaluative position. Mentors may have felt primarily motivated
to support their mentees rather than to engage in personal
exploration and learning. Furthermore, these conditions may
have limited participants’ openness to disclose challenges
and/or difficulties during both the program and the focus
groups.
Although further work is required to gain a more
complete understanding of CARE’s effects under various
conditions, the results of Study 1 suggest that CARE is a
promising intervention to support teachers experiencing the
emotional stress of working in challenging settings. In this
manner, CARE may begin to address an important professional development need long ignored by the education research community. While research has demonstrated that
teachers may deal with highly stressful emotional situations
in ways that compromise their ability to provide support to
students, especially in high-risk settings, there is a paucity of
research aimed at supporting teachers’ SEC and well-being
as means of promoting resilience and improving their performance and the performance of their students.
This research contributes to our understanding of competent classroom management and teacher care and begins
to reveal how these constructs may be interrelated. In recent
years there has been a move towards a more authoritative and
proactive approach to classroom management (as opposed to
controlling negative behaviors through coercive measures;
Angell, 1991; Brophy, 2006; Glasser, 1988, 1998a; Levin
& Nolan, 2006). This approach encourages cooperation and
engagement through the careful application of teacher care
in the form of establishing warm and supportive relationships and learning communities, providing firm but sensitive
limit-setting and employing ongoing preventive strategies
(Kohn, 1996; Marzano et al., 2003; Noddings, 2005; Watson, 2003; Watson & Battistich, 2006). Particularly relevant
to this study is the suggestion that authoritative approaches
rely on teachers’ and students’ self-regulation for the development and maintenance of a learning environment where
students cooperate out of a sense of shared commitment and
responsibility rather than as a means to avoid punishment or
earn rewards (Weinstein, 1999; Woolfolk Hoy & Weinstein,
2006). This major paradigm shift has necessitated a greater degree of teacher SEC than was essential for classroom
management in the past. Indeed, this shift was presaged by
the work of Jacob Kounin who discovered a construct he
identified as “withitness” (Kounin, 1977) associated with the
teachers’ high degree of awareness of individual and group
social and emotional dynamics and the ability to influence
and regulate these dynamics proactively. His research suggested that SEC may help teachers maintain attentive and
responsive monitoring, which prevents disruptive behavior
and supports student on-task behavior. The pilot studies here
indicate that teachers’ own development is a key issue if we
are to improve the conditions of schooling, support teacher
caring and commitment, and improve the academic and social-emotional growth of students.
REFERENCES
Angell, A. V. (1991). Democratic climates in elementary classrooms: A review of theory and research. Theory and Research in Social Education, 19, 241-266.
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney,
L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore
facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13, 27-45.
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Anderson, N.
D., Carmody, J., . . . Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A pro-
46
posed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science
and Practice, 11, 230-241.
Brophy, J. (2006). History of research on classroom management.
In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of
classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 17 - 43). Mahwah, NJ: Erlmaum.
Chang, M. L. (2009). An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout: Examining the emotional work of teachers. Educational
Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 46.1 2011
Improving Classroom Learning Environments by Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE)
Psychology Review, 21, 193-218.
Cohn, M. A., Brown, S. L., Fredrickson, B. L., Milkels, J. A., &
Conway, A. M. (2009). Happiness unpacked: Positive emotions increase life satisfaction by building resilience. Emotion, 9, 361-368.
Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981).
An instrument to assess adults’ orientations toward control
versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 73, 642-650.
Fredrickson, B. L., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., Cohn, M. A., & Finkel,
S. M. (2008). Open hearts build lives: Positive emotions,
induced through loving-kindness meditation, build consequential personal resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1045-1062.
Glasser, W. (1988). Choice theory in the classroom. New York:
Harper.
Glasser, W. (1998a). The quality school: Managing students without coercion. New York: Harper Collins.
Greenberg, M. T., Jennings, P. A., & Goodman, B. (2010). The interpersonal mindfulness in teaching scale. University Park,
PA: Pennsylvania State University.
Gross, J. J. (2009). Handbook of emotion regulation. New York:
Guilford Press.
Gu, Q., & Day, C. (2007). Teachers’ resilience: A necessary condition for effectiveness. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23,
1302-1316.
Jennings, P. A. (2011). Promoting teachers’ social and emotional
competencies to support performance and reduce burnout. In
A. Cohan & A. Honigsfeld (Eds.) Breaking the mold of preservice and in-service teacher education: Innovative and
successful practices for the 21st century. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation
to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational
Research, 79, 491-525.
Jimenez, S. S., Niles, B. L., & Park, C. L. (2010). A mindfulness model of affect regulation and depressive symptoms:
Positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies, and selfacceptance as regulatory mechanisms. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 645-650.
Kashdan, T. B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010). Psychological flexibility
as a fundamental aspect of health. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 865-878.
Kohn, A. (1996). Beyond discipline: From compliance to community. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kounin, J. S. (1977). Discipline and group management in classrooms. Huntington, NY: Kreiger.
Landy, F. J., Rastegary, H., Thayer, J., & Colvin, C. (1991). Time
urgency: The construct and its measurement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 644-657.
Larsen, R. J., & Kasimatis, M. (1997). Day-to-day physical symptoms: Individual differences in the occurrence, duration, and
emotional concomitants of minor daily illnesses. Journal of
Personality, 59, 387-423.
Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 46.1 2011
Levin, J., & Nolan, J. F. (2006). Principles of classroom management: A professional decision-making model (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Marzano, R. J., Marzano, J. S., & Pickering, D. J. (2003). Classroom management that works. Alexandra, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Metlife. (2002). The Metlife survey of the American teacher
2002—student life: School, home, and community. New
York: Author.
Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. New York: Teachers College,
Columbia University.
Osher, D., Sprague, J., Weissberg, R. P., Axelrod, J., Keenan, S.,
& Kendziora, K. T. (2007). A comprehensive approach to
promoting social, emotional, and academic growth in contemporary schools. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best
practices in school psychology (5th ed., Vol. 4). Bethesda,
MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. (2003). Classroom assessment scoring system. Baltimore, MD: Brooks Publishing
Company.
Public Agenda. (1994). First things first: What Americans expect
from the public schools. New York: Author.
Public Agenda. (1997). Getting by: What American teenagers really think about their schools. New York: Author.
Public Agenda. (2002). A lot easier said than done: Parents talk
about raising children in today’s America. New York: Author.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self report depression
scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.
Reeve, J., Bolt, E., & Cai, Y. (1999). Autonomy-supportive teachers: How they teach and motivate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 537-548.
Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (2000). The 32nd annual Phi Delta
Kappa/Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public
schools. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa International.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and
the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development,
and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 17, 783-805.
Tsouloupas, C. N., Carson, R. L., Matthews, R., Grawitch, M. J.,
& Barber, L. K. (2010). Exploring the association between
teachers’ perceived student misbehaviour and emotional
exhaustion: the importance of teacher efficacy beliefs and
emotion regulation. Educational Psychology, 30, 173-189.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and
validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect:
The PANAS. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 1063-1070.
Watson, M. (2003). Learning to Trust. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Watson, M., & Battistich, V. (2006). Building and sustaining caring
communities. In C. S. Weinstein & C. M. Evertson (Eds.),
Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice,
47
Improving Classroom Learning Environments by Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE)
and contemporary issues (pp. 253-279). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Weinstein, C. S. (1999). Reflections on best practices and promising programs. In H. J. Freiberg (Ed.), Beyond behaviorism:
Changing the classroom management paradigm (pp. 145163). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Weinstein, N., Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). A multimethod examination of the effects of mindfulness on stress
attribution, coping and emotional well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 374-385.
Wilson, S., Ball, D. L., Bryk, A. S., Figlio, D., Grossman, P., Irvine, J. J., . . . Porter, A. (2008). Teacher Quality: Education
white paper. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.
48
Woolfolk Hoy, A. W., & Weinstein, C. S. (2006). Student and
teacher perspectives on classroom management. In C. M.
Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of Classroom
Management: Research, Practice, and Contemporary Issues
(pp. 181-220). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Corresponding author: Patricia A. Jennings, Ph.D.,
Prevention Research Center, Pennsylvania State University,
126C Henderson South, University Park, PA 16802, 814863-8207, paj16@psu.edu.
Funds for the research reported in this article were provided by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education Institute of Educational Sciences #R305A090179.
Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 46.1 2011